Ind. Code 32-30-1-5, the statute of repose, does not apply in plaintiff’s negligence suit; plaintiff was not alleging deficiency in the design or construction to support her claim, but was alleging breach of the duty to protect invitees from a dangerous condition of the premises.
Civil
Price v. Kuchaes, No. 45A04-1007-CT-467, ___ N.E.2d___ (Ind. Ct. App., June 8, 2011)
Plaintiff was divested of standing to pursue his action while his bankruptcy was pending, but the bankruptcy’s dismissal before the trial court ruled on either party’s motion for summary judgment returned ownership of the action to him and plaintiff then had standing to pursue the action.
Robertson v. B.O., No. 49A04-1009-CT-528, ___ N.E.2d ___, (Ind. Ct. App., May 23, 2011)
The Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund can introduce evidence concerning the existence and compensable nature of plaintiff’s damages after the plaintiff entered into a settlement with the healthcare provider settling the claim of medical malpractice.
French v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 18A02-1005-PL-489, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., May 26, 2011)
In a real estate insurance context, even if a homeowner conceals or fails to disclose the true value or nature of his home, failure to disclose true value will not give rise to a rescission claim; insurance companies are in a better position to accurately ascertain the value of a home than most homeowners and if they don’t ascertain the value of the home, they do so at their own peril.
CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Barabas, No. 48A04-1004-CC-232, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 17, 2011)
“Mortgagee” Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) was a “mere nominee” and “bare legal title” holder without interest in the property separate from that of the original lender Irwin, and as mortgage provided for notices only to Irwin the lender, and not to MERS, MERS’s assignee Citimortgage was not entitled to have default in the foreclosure of another mortgage vacated on the basis only Irwin and not MERS received foreclosure notice.